Continued, there are also policy changes that exasperate it.
One clear example is Oxford City where HMOs and Shared Houses were significantly cracked down on at one point by requiring extra expensive licensing for smaller house shares, thereby making it more difficult (=expensive) to provide housing for young single professionals, who are in abundance in Oxford.
A few years later they found themselves demanding the right to build on greenbelt belonging to other authorities. I wonder why.
There's a multitude of similar stuff involved, but none of it helps.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Some of the problems with deselections are simply due to parties parachuting candidates in.
Luciana Berger was born in Wembley and went to Haberdashers Aske, then Univ. of Birmingham. She has no connection with Liverpool Wavertree.
Nick Boles seems to have spent most of life in London, went to Winchester College, then Oxford Univ. He has no connection with Grantham and Stamford.
These MPs should quite properly be deselected, as they are not at all representative of their constituencies.
They might be suitable as London MPs.
London is already grotesquely fat with its self-importance. We don't need endless MPs from London representing Liverpool or East of England.
Why should being associated with the area be a pre-requisite?
A willingness to engage with and understand an area is important if you are to represent them properly. To many ambitious politicos - understably - see London as where their careers will be made so their focus shifts.
Forcing association with an area doesn't ensure that won't happen, nor does a lack of one prevent engagement and understanding. I've lived in the same area my whole life and there's still aspects of it I just do not understand as I do not engage with the community in a way that I probably should. I don't think we want to restrict those able to represent an area to only those with quite long connections, even if relying on parties to not take the piss with carpetbaggers who won't care about it so long as it is safe is not a perfect approach. MPs also have national responsibilities, so the requirement to live/work etc within a certain distance as applies to parishes etc it not as applicable.
Never underesimtate the ability of people to think there is a crisis of the soul and get by just fine. They love sounding dramatic, but ask how many would ever contemplate leaving and turns out it may be a crisis but not so much as they think.
I think you are trying to play down this existential crisis engulfing labour
I'm still hoping for an Oscar preview from Roger but he is leaving it late!
I saw Green Book yesterday. Brilliant. My tip for best film. My other bet is on Vice for best editing - another brilliant film.
Thanks. I'd already backed Green Book against the odds-on favourite Roma for Best Picture. There does seem to have been money for Green Book this morning, as it has been cut in some places from 11/4 to 9/4. Is it the Racing Post tip, perhaps, or smart money?
Perhaps mine . I'm on at 3.95 on Betfair.
Green Book is lovely, but perhaps a bit slight for an Oscar. Not very much happens, except that the protagonists learn to like each other. You leave the movie feeling happier about the world and enhanced as an individual, and that's great. But it's hard to imagine it being watched in 10 years' time.
I think that's right but I struggled with most of the nominees, Roma was beautifully photographed and directed and deserves an oscar for best direction and best cinematograhy but I found it emotionally uninvolving which was essential to make the film work. It's also nominated for best foreign language film. In this category I think it does have competition. I thought 'Shopliters' was an excellent film. A Japanese 'Oliver' and for those looking for an outsider a worthwhile bet
Roma is beautiful but dull.
I reckon Cold War is a good dark horse for Cinematography.
That was also well photographed and both benefited from Black and White but in this category I think Roma just has the edge. Those sweeping 180 degree pans in Roma were very beautiful and well conceived. I loved Cold War as a film though. It had all the emotional involvement Roma was lacking.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
As Allen said they are not yet fully ready that is precisely the point, their focus is on getting the party infrastructure and membership in place first, entirely sensible before they can effectively fight an election campaign
But by the time they are ready, Brexit might well have reached its resolution. Are they going to become the party of rejoin?
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Great header. What always springs to mind for me is the Irish Republican constitutional theory that the only mandate that mattered was the 1919 election, which (to their minds) ratified the 1916 declaration of an Irish Republic. No democratic decision of the Irish electorate since then concerned them, such exercises were organised by the 26 and 6 county illigitimate entities. The IRA was the army of the true republic of 1916 to which all Irishmen owed their allegiance.
Similarly the “will of the people” in 2016 is eternal, can never be changed, and any attempt to deviate is illigitimate. But in truth no mandate lasts forever and the further we get from 2016 that stemming from the referendum is inevitably going to weaken. In 2116, while we are in our 97th year of a “transition” the provisional wing of leavers will still be trotting out “...but 17.4 million people...”.
I still don't understand that defence given the nature of the claim he made being so generic.
Quite. Were I wishing to express a similar sentiment about Corbyn, I’d call him a humourless pillock - rather than suggesting that all socialists are humourless pillocks.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
As Allen said they are not yet fully ready that is precisely the point, their focus is on getting the party infrastructure and membership in place first, entirely sensible before they can effectively fight an election campaign
I wasn't suggesting they be ready to fight a GE right away, nor that they would have the entire infrastructure in place immediately, but a party label would be helpful because it would hopefully identify what they agree on besides Brexit and Corbyn, and if it is already the plan they must already know those things.
Great header. What always springs to mind for me is the Irish Republican constitutional theory that the only mandate that mattered was the 1919 election, which (to their minds) ratified the 1916 declaration of an Irish Republic. No democratic decision of the Irish electorate since then concerned them, such exercises were organised by the 26 and 6 county illigitimate entities. The IRA was the army of the true republic of 1916 to which all Irishmen owed their allegiance.
Similarly the “will of the people” in 2016 is eternal, can never be changed, and any attempt to deviate is illigitimate. But in truth no mandate lasts forever and the further we get from 2016 that stemming from the referendum is inevitably going to weaken. In 2116, while we are in our 97th year of a “transition” the provisional wing of leavers will still be trotting out “...but 17.4 million people...”.
If we are still in transition by 2116 they'll have a point!
I'm still hoping for an Oscar preview from Roger but he is leaving it late!
I saw Green Book yesterday. Brilliant. My tip for best film. My other bet is on Vice for best editing - another brilliant film.
Thanks. I'd already backed Green Book against the odds-on favourite Roma for Best Picture. There does seem to have been money for Green Book this morning, as it has been cut in some places from 11/4 to 9/4. Is it the Racing Post tip, perhaps, or smart money?
Perhaps mine . I'm on at 3.95 on Betfair.
Green Book is lovely, but perhaps a bit slight for an Oscar. Not very much happens, except that the protagonists learn to like each other. You leave the movie feeling happier about the world and enhanced as an individual, and that's great. But it's hard to imagine it being watched in 10 years' time.
I think that's right but I struggled with most of the nominees, Roma was beautifully photographed and directed and deserves an oscar for best direction and best cinematograhy but I found it emotionally uninvolving which was essential to make the film work. It's also nominated for best foreign language film. In this category I think it does have competition. I thought 'Shopliters' was an excellent film. A Japanese 'Oliver' and for those looking for an outsider a worthwhile bet
Roma is beautiful but dull.
I reckon Cold War is a good dark horse for Cinematography.
That was also well photographed and both benefited from Black and White but in this category I think Roma just has the edge. Those sweeping 180 degree pans in Roma were very beautiful and well conceived. I loved Cold War as a film though. It had all the emotional involvement Roma was lacking.
I think Roma will win, but have had a nibble on Cold War and Pawlowski as an outside bet.
I haven't seen Shoplifters, but shall look out for it.
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitous, not to be trusted man.
There are literally no politicians that can be trusted.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
I still don't understand that defence given the nature of the claim he made being so generic.
It is no defence. That's the point.
"He was only being anti-Semitic towards 2 Jews, not ALL Jews..."
Yes, thank you, I noticed. My point was I don't understand why they think it is a defence. Many a bad defence still holds up on at least internal, warped logic.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
As Allen said they are not yet fully ready that is precisely the point, their focus is on getting the party infrastructure and membership in place first, entirely sensible before they can effectively fight an election campaign
But by the time they are ready, Brexit might well have reached its resolution. Are they going to become the party of rejoin?
Never underesimtate the ability of people to think there is a crisis of the soul and get by just fine. They love sounding dramatic, but ask how many would ever contemplate leaving and turns out it may be a crisis but not so much as they think.
I think you are trying to play down this existential crisis engulfing labour
Not at all, I just worry that the rhetoric from people like Watson will not match their actions if certain actions are not taken.
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
Yes, thank you, I noticed. My point was I don't understand why they think it is a defence. Many a bad defence still holds up on at least internal, warped logic.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Rather hopeful prediction of the Tiggers eclipsing the SNP ...by counting the LDs as part of it, and assuming 9 lab and 4 con defections without any names given.
The main benefit for TIG is getting "automatic" invitations from broadcasters; it is that loss which is killing the LibDems. Whether this sleight of hand will fool anyone is unlikely, but the two questions at PMQs, as is the right of the SNP as the third largest party, are less important.
Broadcasters and Westminster already discriminate against and ignore SNP.
The Leader of the SNP, as that of the third party in Parliament, always gets an early call from the Speaker.
OKC, they are ignored in general, told to F off , go home etc and most times all the morons walk out etc. The sooner we are out of that shithole and the supposed union the better.
He's seen on the box in TV reports though.
once in a blue moon, just look at BBC QT, totally unrepresented on regular basis, look at any newspaper , and rarely ever seen on TV given the position.
Malc, quit moaning. You had your chance for independence a few years ago, your lot didn't fancy it. Mind you, if Brexit is anything to go by, even if you did vote for it it'd be too difficult to achieve anyway!
Twisted, I am allowed to moan , just because the fearties did not vote for it does not mean I have to be happy about it. Will be interesting to see Brexit and then independence and then back in EU, that will occupy things in Scotland for a few years. PS: Having a moan is good for you
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
Some of the problems with deselections are simply due to parties parachuting candidates in.
Luciana Berger was born in Wembley and went to Haberdashers Aske, then Univ. of Birmingham. She has no connection with Liverpool Wavertree.
Nick Boles seems to have spent most of life in London, went to Winchester College, then Oxford Univ. He has no connection with Grantham and Stamford.
These MPs should quite properly be deselected, as they are not at all representative of their constituencies.
They might be suitable as London MPs.
London is already grotesquely fat with its self-importance. We don't need endless MPs from London representing Liverpool or East of England.
But what was Michael Foot's connection with Ebbw Vale? Or Churchill's connection with seats such as Oldham, Manchester NW, Dundee or Epping? What was Gaitskell's link with Leeds South or Wilson's to Ormskirk /Huyton? What drew Asquith to East Fife - and later Paisley?
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
As Allen said they are not yet fully ready that is precisely the point, their focus is on getting the party infrastructure and membership in place first, entirely sensible before they can effectively fight an election campaign
But by the time they are ready, Brexit might well have reached its resolution. Are they going to become the party of rejoin?
Very likely but until Brexit Day they will be the party for A 'People's Vote' and EUref2 with a Remain option.
Though if the Cooper Letwin amendment passes the Commons next week to extend Article 50 of course Brexit Day could be kicked into the long grass
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
Those are some fair points, but, and it's quite a big but, too a lot of people it doesn't feel like that. For example, why are food banks 'prospering'..... obviously need inverted commas for that....... if unemployment is down and wages are rising?
I'm a 'bit' chary of citing Ian Duncan Smith as an authority.
The figure is from the main organisation, Tafel, that runs food banks in Germany.
"All of them are nonprofit organizations. The Tafel support more than 1.5 million people in need of food throughout the country – nearly one third of them are children and youth." https://www.tafel.de/english-information/
If IDS had got that wrong, it would have been very publicly debunked very quickly and thrown at him via Twitter, and interminably ever after.
Their system of working with grocers and retailers to use excess & otherwise wasted food seems (admirably) as much of a principle as feeding the needy.
That seems pretty much the same as the system here. Presumably, that is also admirable.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
As Allen said they are not yet fully ready that is precisely the point, their focus is on getting the party infrastructure and membership in place first, entirely sensible before they can effectively fight an election campaign
I wasn't suggesting they be ready to fight a GE right away, nor that they would have the entire infrastructure in place immediately, but a party label would be helpful because it would hopefully identify what they agree on besides Brexit and Corbyn, and if it is already the plan they must already know those things.
The policy platform will be based on evidence based policies that work according to Allen and Berger on Mart ie ideology free apart from their opposition to Brexit
Well, the political programming this morning against the odds managed to clear everything up. In an unexpected turn of events we had clarity on Brexit, direct answers to policy questions and a willingness from the government and opposition to deal with objective facts openly and constructively.
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
Why? Do you think there are some people who've been with him thus far but who will switch their votes after being told he's anti-semitic one more time?
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Really? Any hot favourites to take on the Jezziah? Thornberry had been my bet of a successor, but her pitching to the membership is also in contrast to something that would welcome the spliitters back.
Some of the problems with deselections are simply due to parties parachuting candidates in.
Luciana Berger was born in Wembley and went to Haberdashers Aske, then Univ. of Birmingham. She has no connection with Liverpool Wavertree.
Nick Boles seems to have spent most of life in London, went to Winchester College, then Oxford Univ. He has no connection with Grantham and Stamford.
These MPs should quite properly be deselected, as they are not at all representative of their constituencies.
They might be suitable as London MPs.
London is already grotesquely fat with its self-importance. We don't need endless MPs from London representing Liverpool or East of England.
But what was Michael Foot's connection with Ebbw Vale? Or Churchill's connection with seats such as Oldham, Manchester NW, Dundee or Epping? What was Gaitskell's link with Leeds South or Wilson's to Ormskirk /Huyton? What drew Asquith to East Fife - and later Paisley?
Why? Do you think there are some people who've been with him thus far but who will switch their votes after being told he's anti-semitic one more time?
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Remain is a temporary position either way and post brexit, if we leave, it will no doubt be a rejoin position.
I hope Corbyn is overthrown and labour can rediscover it's true values, however I think a split is more likely
SR does have a wonderful voice. If I am ever terminally ill or Leeds get relegated to League One again I want her to be the one to break the news to me.
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
Why? Do you think there are some people who've been with him thus far but who will switch their votes after being told he's anti-semitic one more time?
A very important question. It's not dismissing its importance, but the MPs really have heard it all before on this issue. Without the additional strain of Brexit it doesn't seem like the Tiggers would have gone further, so it seems it is once more on Brexit that will decide if there is a huge split. Corbyn would be an utter fool to not cut off that issue.
And is there something in the view that even if Corbyn remains horrible, as long as there are ones like Watson on board who is clearly taking a different approach, most of those at least thinking of leaving will not consider the fight has been totally lost?
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
Why? Do you think there are some people who've been with him thus far but who will switch their votes after being told he's anti-semitic one more time?
No!! I just want it all over the media what a thoroughly nasty piece of work Corbyn is, unfit to be a leader of Labour.. Let round 1 begin.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
One that won't get you re-elected, Heidi. This 'Cameronite' has, in less than four years, managed to totally alienate her association and lose control of her District Council in a Lib Dem landslide. Still, I suppose we will have to listen to her parading her conscience and pleading that, well, I really didn't understand that the Nasty Party was Nasty, for the next two years. Pathetic.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Remain is a temporary position either way and post brexit, if we leave, it will no doubt be a rejoin position.
You make a good point here. Politics post Brexit ( or Remain) will be very different to today. We have no idea what it will look like.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
One that won't get you re-elected, Heidi. This 'Cameronite' has, in less than four years, managed to totally alienate her association and lose control of her District Council in a Lib Dem landslide. Still, I suppose we will have to listen to her parading her conscience and pleading that, well, I really didn't understand that the Nasty Party was Nasty, for the next two years. Pathetic.
Hmmm. I live in South Cambs, and I think you're a little off-course with that comment.
For instance, it's easy to argue that South Cambs turning yellow is more down to the Conservatives' current Brexit-mania not selling well in a fairly remain area ...
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Really? Any hot favourites to take on the Jezziah? Thornberry had been my bet of a successor, but her pitching to the membership is also in contrast to something that would welcome the spliitters back.
I reckon it needs a strong character to do so. Tom Watson or Jess Phillips.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
As Allen said they are not yet fully ready that is precisely the point, their focus is on getting the party infrastructure and membership in place first, entirely sensible before they can effectively fight an election campaign
I wasn't suggesting they be ready to fight a GE right away, nor that they would have the entire infrastructure in place immediately, but a party label would be helpful because it would hopefully identify what they agree on besides Brexit and Corbyn, and if it is already the plan they must already know those things.
The policy platform will be based on evidence based policies that work according to Allen and Berger on Mart ie ideology free apart from their opposition to Brexit
I find that very hard to believe, frankly. When they supported various Labour and Tory policies they will have backed some because they felt they were evidence based and worked, not only because they were party policies, and yet they found themselves on opposite sides then and would now. That's fine, they are not going to agree on anything and would need a more generic policy, but while I look forward to what else they would propose, it would be nice to know just one other thing they all agree on. If more join them after all they will hold the balance of power until an election.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
One that won't get you re-elected, Heidi. This 'Cameronite' has, in less than four years, managed to totally alienate her association and lose control of her District Council in a Lib Dem landslide. Still, I suppose we will have to listen to her parading her conscience and pleading that, well, I really didn't understand that the Nasty Party was Nasty, for the next two years. Pathetic.
Do MPs and their actions really have much impact on local authority elections?
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
Great header. What always springs to mind for me is the Irish Republican constitutional theory that the only mandate that mattered was the 1919 election, which (to their minds) ratified the 1916 declaration of an Irish Republic. No democratic decision of the Irish electorate since then concerned them, such exercises were organised by the 26 and 6 county illigitimate entities. The IRA was the army of the true republic of 1916 to which all Irishmen owed their allegiance.
Similarly the “will of the people” in 2016 is eternal, can never be changed, and any attempt to deviate is illigitimate. But in truth no mandate lasts forever and the further we get from 2016 that stemming from the referendum is inevitably going to weaken. In 2116, while we are in our 97th year of a “transition” the provisional wing of leavers will still be trotting out “...but 17.4 million people...”.
If we are still in transition by 2116 they'll have a point!
19 years later, Sweden is still in transition to the Euro !!
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
As Allen said they are not yet fully ready that is precisely the point, their focus is on getting the party infrastructure and membership in place first, entirely sensible before they can effectively fight an election campaign
I wasn't suggesting they be ready to fight a GE right away, nor that they would have the entire infrastructure in place immediately, but a party label would be helpful because it would hopefully identify what they agree on besides Brexit and Corbyn, and if it is already the plan they must already know those things.
The policy platform will be based on evidence based policies that work according to Allen and Berger on Mart ie ideology free apart from their opposition to Brexit
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Remain is a temporary position either way and post brexit, if we leave, it will no doubt be a rejoin position.
You make a good point here. Politics post Brexit ( or Remain) will be very different to today. We have no idea what it will look like.
Great header. What always springs to mind for me is the Irish Republican constitutional theory that the only mandate that mattered was the 1919 election, which (to their minds) ratified the 1916 declaration of an Irish Republic. No democratic decision of the Irish electorate since then concerned them, such exercises were organised by the 26 and 6 county illigitimate entities. The IRA was the army of the true republic of 1916 to which all Irishmen owed their allegiance.
Similarly the “will of the people” in 2016 is eternal, can never be changed, and any attempt to deviate is illigitimate. But in truth no mandate lasts forever and the further we get from 2016 that stemming from the referendum is inevitably going to weaken. In 2116, while we are in our 97th year of a “transition” the provisional wing of leavers will still be trotting out “...but 17.4 million people...”.
If we are still in transition by 2116 they'll have a point!
19 years later, Sweden is still in transition to the Euro !!
And look how many states are still undertaking and safeguarding 'the revolution' decades and decades after the fact!
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
As Allen said they are not yet fully ready that is precisely the point, their focus is on getting the party infrastructure and membership in place first, entirely sensible before they can effectively fight an election campaign
I wasn't suggesting they be ready to fight a GE right away, nor that they would have the entire infrastructure in place immediately, but a party label would be helpful because it would hopefully identify what they agree on besides Brexit and Corbyn, and if it is already the plan they must already know those things.
The policy platform will be based on evidence based policies that work according to Allen and Berger on Mart ie ideology free apart from their opposition to Brexit
I find that very hard to believe, frankly. When they supported various Labour and Tory policies they will have backed some because they felt they were evidence based and worked, not only because they were party policies, and yet they found themselves on opposite sides then and would now. That's fine, they are not going to agree on anything and would need a more generic policy, but while I look forward to what else they would propose, it would be nice to know just one other thing they all agree on. If more join them after all they will hold the balance of power until an election.
Heidi Allen on Marr. 'Yes, we are to become a party'
Obvious question: If they are so clear on that, why the delay in doing so when they sound ready?
One that won't get you re-elected, Heidi. This 'Cameronite' has, in less than four years, managed to totally alienate her association and lose control of her District Council in a Lib Dem landslide. Still, I suppose we will have to listen to her parading her conscience and pleading that, well, I really didn't understand that the Nasty Party was Nasty, for the next two years. Pathetic.
Do MPs and their actions really have much impact on local authority elections?
On the election itself, perhaps not, but dividing a previously (fairly) united local party into competing factions, yes.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Remain is a temporary position either way and post brexit, if we leave, it will no doubt be a rejoin position.
You make a good point here. Politics post Brexit ( or Remain) will be very different to today. We have no idea what it will look like.
Remain will shift to EEA/EFTA with a route to rejoin.
The Tories will have to choose between parochial nativism and being the party of business. I reckon the former will triumph.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Really? Any hot favourites to take on the Jezziah? Thornberry had been my bet of a successor, but her pitching to the membership is also in contrast to something that would welcome the spliitters back.
I reckon it needs a strong character to do so. Tom Watson or Jess Phillips.
The way he was talking this morning he looks like a de facto leader if he resigns and takes a considerable number of his colleagues with him. Jess Phillips is a star but not a leader
Great header. What always springs to mind for me is the Irish Republican constitutional theory that the only mandate that mattered was the 1919 election, which (to their minds) ratified the 1916 declaration of an Irish Republic. No democratic decision of the Irish electorate since then concerned them, such exercises were organised by the 26 and 6 county illigitimate entities. The IRA was the army of the true republic of 1916 to which all Irishmen owed their allegiance.
Similarly the “will of the people” in 2016 is eternal, can never be changed, and any attempt to deviate is illigitimate. But in truth no mandate lasts forever and the further we get from 2016 that stemming from the referendum is inevitably going to weaken. In 2116, while we are in our 97th year of a “transition” the provisional wing of leavers will still be trotting out “...but 17.4 million people...”.
If we are still in transition by 2116 they'll have a point!
19 years later, Sweden is still in transition to the Euro !!
That's because the Swedes rejected Euro membership in their referendum. Not because the Swedes backed it.
Can you have too many lawyers in a law making body? Possibly. Whether Luciana Berger represents the good burghers of Liverpool Wavertree is surely up to them but I note that her vote increased by 16% in 2015 and a further 10% in 2017 so the evidence that they really object is...thin.
Yes, you can have too many lawyers.
We ended up in the Iraq War because Blair was trained as a lawyer -- he looked for evidence to support his brief.
A Parliament with more scientists, mathematicians and engineers would have approached the problem differently. They would have looked at the balance of the evidence.
As regards Wavertree, the Constituency Labour Party (a representative of the good burghers as you quaintly put it) has the perfect right to deselect her.
If I were in Liverpool Wavertree CLP, I would vote to deselect her.
One striking thing about the far right gatherings you see these days: those attending are generally middle aged or older. In the 70s and 80s the NF and BNP marches attracted much younger, mostly male, participants. Racism just seems unfathomable to most young people now. That’s progress!
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
Indeed. How many worthy individuals would have been lost to politics as a result? It's solution looking for a problem - people being parachuted in is not inherently a problem, it's whether those chosen for the parachuting then take the time and effort to meaningfully get to know, connect with and represent the area. That's a party selection issue.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
I dont think anyone is suggesting a birth certificate is required in order to be the MP for the area, just a genuine connection.
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
Don't be daft. You can represent a neighbouring seat, and most people are not so static they just have connections to one seat.
You can move to a seat, become involved in local politics and then (after say 5 years) put yourself forward as an MP.
Even though you live in the South of England (Crawley ?), there are plenty of Labour seats nearby.
Could we see yet another "back me or sack me" vote for Corbyn? Delicious if it happens, wonderful to see the arguments about anti-Semitism all over the media again...It will really skewer Corbyn
If there is I suspect there will be an even bigger mandate for Corbyn for two reason.
1: A lot of sane Labour people have left the party. 2: The NEC is controlled by Corbynistas who will reverse tricks the prior NEC tried to pull to skewer Corbyn.
At the last vote the anti-Corbyn NEC tried to change the cut off date for membership to prevent new Corbynistas voting and tried to purge the membership of people who were antisemitic or had backed SWP or other non-Labour Parties at social media.
This time the pro-Corbyn NEC could try the same tricks. Prevent Labour "moderates" rejoining to vote against Corbyn, allow back the anti semites (this is already happening) while potentially purging the party of members who've spoken positively about the TIG, or Lib Dems etc
Can you have too many lawyers in a law making body? Possibly. Whether Luciana Berger represents the good burghers of Liverpool Wavertree is surely up to them but I note that her vote increased by 16% in 2015 and a further 10% in 2017 so the evidence that they really object is...thin.
Yes, you can have too many lawyers.
We ended up in the Iraq War because Blair was trained as a lawyer -- he looked for evidence to support his brief.
A Parliament with more scientists, mathematicians and engineers would have approached the problem differently. They would have looked at the balance of the evidence.
As regards Wavertree, the Constituency Labour Party (a representative of the good burghers as you quaintly put it) has the perfect right to deselect her.
If I were in Liverpool Wavertree CLP, I would vote to deselect her.
She’s deselected herself. I would imagine they will have a new candidate in short order.
Some of the problems with deselections are simply due to parties parachuting candidates in.
Luciana Berger was born in Wembley and went to Haberdashers Aske, then Univ. of Birmingham. She has no connection with Liverpool Wavertree.
Nick Boles seems to have spent most of life in London, went to Winchester College, then Oxford Univ. He has no connection with Grantham and Stamford.
These MPs should quite properly be deselected, as they are not at all representative of their constituencies.
They might be suitable as London MPs.
London is already grotesquely fat with its self-importance. We don't need endless MPs from London representing Liverpool or East of England.
But what was Michael Foot's connection with Ebbw Vale? Or Churchill's connection with seats such as Oldham, Manchester NW, Dundee or Epping? What was Gaitskell's link with Leeds South or Wilson's to Ormskirk /Huyton? What drew Asquith to East Fife - and later Paisley?
The merits of MPs having pre-existing roots in the constituencies they serve is up for debate, but it's clearly wrong to state it as a factor in the case of Luciana Berger. She wasn't brought up there, certainly, but she's been the MP there since 2010, and is now married to a Liverpudlian, and starting a family there. She had no or few complaints about her attachments prior to the Corbyn era.
In any case I can see the potential for a lot of negative side effects of forcing candidates to have deeper connections. There are a lot of parts of the country where this would be simply impractical for one or other party - how on earth would Labour fill its roster in (say) rural Staffordshire? Or the Conservatives in Liverpool?
Is it not a good thing to allow talented people the chance to enter Parliament in cases where they grew up in an area either dominated by the other side, or has a full slate of mediocre yet untouchable sitting MPs in safe seats, with no retirement date in sight? Or that candidates get to practice campaigning in seats they have no chance in, with a view to gaining the experience they need to have a proper tilt at a winnable marginal five years later?
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
I dont think anyone is suggesting a birth certificate is required in order to be the MP for the area, just a genuine connection.
And how do you judge what is a suitably genuine connection? As I pointed out, someone could undeniably have connection with a place and be less worthy to represent it than someone brand new to the area.
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
Huddersfield votes for Huddersfield people.... how very Gordon Brown.
Yes if you don't agree with Corbyn you should leave the party. But that's still a very minority position. And the more Corbyn's "enemies" leave the party the more secure his grip on the party becomes. Its a conundrum.
Tom Watson should join TIG and lead an exodus of MPs to TIG. That would destroy Corbyn, by destroying Labour. Which is why he doesn't want to do it.
It is Labourites love of the Labour brand, rather than rather Labour is meant to stand for, that is keeping Corbyn secure.
Harold Wilson famously said the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing. Under Corbyn the morals are that of Communism, Maduro and Antisemitism. For the sane left it is nothing. Take what made Labour good in your eyes and rebuild it in TIG.
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
Don't be daft. You can represent a neighbouring seat, and most people are not so static they just have connections to one seat.
You can move to a seat, become involved in local politics and then (after say 5 years) put yourself forward as an MP.
Even though you live in the South of England (Crawley ?), there are plenty of Labour seats nearby.
So it’s a matter of miles, a neighbouring seat ok, but one beyond that not. Where can you draw the line? A bit of an arbitrary silly rule.
If being local was key the voters would vote for it. They don’t. Historically people vote for parties and then the individual. You’re arguing for identity politics.
If Jews in Europe are afraid again, that is shameful for us all. Every single attack on them is also an attack on our liberal democracy. We have to regard Jewish life as an undeserved gift and do everything we can to protect it.
Great header. What always springs to mind for me is the Irish Republican constitutional theory that the only mandate that mattered was the 1919 election, which (to their minds) ratified the 1916 declaration of an Irish Republic. No democratic decision of the Irish electorate since then concerned them, such exercises were organised by the 26 and 6 county illigitimate entities. The IRA was the army of the true republic of 1916 to which all Irishmen owed their allegiance.
Similarly the “will of the people” in 2016 is eternal, can never be changed, and any attempt to deviate is illigitimate. But in truth no mandate lasts forever and the further we get from 2016 that stemming from the referendum is inevitably going to weaken. In 2116, while we are in our 97th year of a “transition” the provisional wing of leavers will still be trotting out “...but 17.4 million people...”.
If we are still in transition by 2116 they'll have a point!
19 years later, Sweden is still in transition to the Euro !!
That's because the Swedes rejected Euro membership in their referendum. Not because the Swedes backed it.
It will be a QI fact in 2116, like the Easter Act still being on the statute books waiting for implementation. “Technically the UK’s associate status is designed to facilitate its transition out of the EU, a transition that has been ongoing since 2019!”
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
I dont think anyone is suggesting a birth certificate is required in order to be the MP for the area, just a genuine connection.
And how do you judge what is a suitably genuine connection? As I pointed out, someone could undeniably have connection with a place and be less worthy to represent it than someone brand new to the area.
For god's sake, we're not taking about cutting edge research in quantum gravity.
On that basis few southerners will be allowed to be Labour MP's and vice versa. It would have ruled out most senior figures in the Parties in the past, as they were all to a greater or lesser extent dropped in. Wilson from Huddersfield represented Huyton. Hugh Dalton represented Bishop Auckland, James Callaghan from Portsmouth represented Cardiff. The list is endless, they are just three I remember. Selection should be about talent.
Nonsense.
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
So, if you happen to be born or live in an opponents safe seat you can never get involved in national politics. Hmmm.
Indeed. How many worthy individuals would have been lost to politics as a result? It's solution looking for a problem - people being parachuted in is not inherently a problem, it's whether those chosen for the parachuting then take the time and effort to meaningfully get to know, connect with and represent the area. That's a party selection issue.
The problem is that party selections are either under the control of a hundred or so local members, or a national party favouring its SPADS. Local voters rarely get a say, and when they do their choices are often at odds will local parties and national leaders, Sarah Wollaston for example.
Compare and contrast Michael Gove's attitude on Marr to the conservative leavers hoping they will rejoin and Emily Thornberry's vicious attack yesterday on the labour leavers.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
Gove is a duplicitious, not to be trusted man.
That is not really my point. The conservatives want their leavers to rejoin someday, Corbyn is glad to see the back of his leavers
But @AlastairMeeks is right. The Labour Tiggers can rejoin fairly easily if the Leadership changes. The Tory Tiggers only if the party switches to Remain. The former looks more likely, indeed I think that we will see a Labour Leadership challenge this summer, and quite likely a successful one.
Remain is a temporary position either way and post brexit, if we leave, it will no doubt be a rejoin position.
You make a good point here. Politics post Brexit ( or Remain) will be very different to today. We have no idea what it will look like.
Remain will shift to EEA/EFTA with a route to rejoin.
The Tories will have to choose between parochial nativism and being the party of business. I reckon the former will triumph.
Even in the UK polls show about a third of voters back rejoinining the EU even with the Euro, far from a majority but a big pool for an anti Brexit third party like TIG to fish in.
Eventually the Tories and indeed Labour may shift to EFTA/EEA but not before EU immigration, especially from Eastern Europe has been brought under control
Comments
One clear example is Oxford City where HMOs and Shared Houses were significantly cracked down on at one point by requiring extra expensive licensing for smaller house shares, thereby making it more difficult (=expensive) to provide housing for young single professionals, who are in abundance in Oxford.
A few years later they found themselves demanding the right to build on greenbelt belonging to other authorities. I wonder why.
There's a multitude of similar stuff involved, but none of it helps.
Indeed the same can be said about TM attitude compared to Corbyn's 'good riddance' comments
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1099621541980106752
"He was only being anti-Semitic towards 2 Jews, not ALL Jews..."
Similarly the “will of the people” in 2016 is eternal, can never be changed, and any attempt to deviate is illigitimate. But in truth no mandate lasts forever and the further we get from 2016 that stemming from the referendum is inevitably going to weaken. In 2116, while we are in our 97th year of a “transition” the provisional wing of leavers will still be trotting out “...but 17.4 million people...”.
Were I wishing to express a similar sentiment about Corbyn, I’d call him a humourless pillock - rather than suggesting that all socialists are humourless pillocks.
I haven't seen Shoplifters, but shall look out for it.
Why is that not good enough for you?
We were nothing but magnanimous and warm to Reckless to the point where he tried to rejoin the Tory party a few years later.
what could it all mean?
Though if the Cooper Letwin amendment passes the Commons next week to extend Article 50 of course Brexit Day could be kicked into the long grass
So Corbyn can ignore Tom Watson.
I hope Corbyn is overthrown and labour can rediscover it's true values, however I think a split is more likely
And is there something in the view that even if Corbyn remains horrible, as long as there are ones like Watson on board who is clearly taking a different approach, most of those at least thinking of leaving will not consider the fight has been totally lost?
Still, I suppose we will have to listen to her parading her conscience and pleading that, well, I really didn't understand that the Nasty Party was Nasty, for the next two years. Pathetic.
For instance, it's easy to argue that South Cambs turning yellow is more down to the Conservatives' current Brexit-mania not selling well in a fairly remain area ...
Wilson could have represented Huddersfield or any neighbouring Labour constituency in West Yorkshire (is there really a difficulty in finding Labour seats in west Yorkshire ?),
Callaghan could have represented Portsmouth (it has a Labour MP at the moment).
In fact, at the time you're talking about, there were Labour MPs in Kent and East Anglia and all over the South of England. So, your point hardly stands up to scrutiny.
https://twitter.com/mayerwakefield/status/1099622402462490624?s=21
The Tories will have to choose between parochial nativism and being the party of business. I reckon the former will triumph.
We ended up in the Iraq War because Blair was trained as a lawyer -- he looked for evidence to support his brief.
A Parliament with more scientists, mathematicians and engineers would have approached the problem differently. They would have looked at the balance of the evidence.
As regards Wavertree, the Constituency Labour Party (a representative of the good burghers as you quaintly put it) has the perfect right to deselect her.
If I were in Liverpool Wavertree CLP, I would vote to deselect her.
You can move to a seat, become involved in local politics and then (after say 5 years) put yourself forward as an MP.
Even though you live in the South of England (Crawley ?), there are plenty of Labour seats nearby.
1: A lot of sane Labour people have left the party.
2: The NEC is controlled by Corbynistas who will reverse tricks the prior NEC tried to pull to skewer Corbyn.
At the last vote the anti-Corbyn NEC tried to change the cut off date for membership to prevent new Corbynistas voting and tried to purge the membership of people who were antisemitic or had backed SWP or other non-Labour Parties at social media.
This time the pro-Corbyn NEC could try the same tricks. Prevent Labour "moderates" rejoining to vote against Corbyn, allow back the anti semites (this is already happening) while potentially purging the party of members who've spoken positively about the TIG, or Lib Dems etc
https://twitter.com/marshallcurry/status/1097615136108568577?s=21
In any case I can see the potential for a lot of negative side effects of forcing candidates to have deeper connections. There are a lot of parts of the country where this would be simply impractical for one or other party - how on earth would Labour fill its roster in (say) rural Staffordshire? Or the Conservatives in Liverpool?
Is it not a good thing to allow talented people the chance to enter Parliament in cases where they grew up in an area either dominated by the other side, or has a full slate of mediocre yet untouchable sitting MPs in safe seats, with no retirement date in sight? Or that candidates get to practice campaigning in seats they have no chance in, with a view to gaining the experience they need to have a proper tilt at a winnable marginal five years later?
Jezza tottering this morning.
https://twitter.com/BarryGardiner/status/1099610795720261632
Yes if you don't agree with Corbyn you should leave the party. But that's still a very minority position. And the more Corbyn's "enemies" leave the party the more secure his grip on the party becomes. Its a conundrum.
Tom Watson should join TIG and lead an exodus of MPs to TIG. That would destroy Corbyn, by destroying Labour. Which is why he doesn't want to do it.
It is Labourites love of the Labour brand, rather than rather Labour is meant to stand for, that is keeping Corbyn secure.
Harold Wilson famously said the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing. Under Corbyn the morals are that of Communism, Maduro and Antisemitism. For the sane left it is nothing. Take what made Labour good in your eyes and rebuild it in TIG.
If being local was key the voters would vote for it. They don’t. Historically people vote for parties and then the individual. You’re arguing for identity politics.
If Jews in Europe are afraid again, that is shameful for us all. Every single attack on them is also an attack on our liberal democracy. We have to regard Jewish life as an undeserved gift and do everything we can to protect it.
Have you seen the standard of our MPs?
Most people are "worthy" enough.
Eventually the Tories and indeed Labour may shift to EFTA/EEA but not before EU immigration, especially from Eastern Europe has been brought under control
Do you regret that?
I wonder where we would be if Labour hadn't showed so well - perhaps the anti semites and bullies would have been back in their cave.